This invention pertains to the art of detachable connectors and more particularly to a detachable electrical cable connector. The invention is particularly applicable for use as a coaxial cable connector for maintaining electrical continuity between a socket and a wingless cable-end radio pin connector and will be described with reference thereto. However, it should be appreciated that the invention has broader applications and may be advantageously employed in still other detachable connector environments and applications.
One structural arrangement which addresses a single conductor type of connector is described in U.S. Pat. No. 2,659,876 to Dupre, et al. which issued Nov. 17, 1953. Dupre, et al. shows a connector having an oval-shape spring element which is split at one end to produce two spaced, free ends and a somewhat U-shape. There is sufficient clearance between the spring elements and the inner surface of a connector body to permit the legs of the U-shape spring element to be spread apart by insertion of a plug or pin member. The spreading is generally in the nature of a lateral pivoting of the legs of the U.
The legs of the U-shape spring element each include an embossed portion that is adapted to engage a groove located on the plug or pin member. The embossed portions are formed at transversely aligned positions on each side of the spring to form a pair of inter-engaging detents for receiving the plug member.
There are a number of disadvantages inherent in the Dupre connector. The spring element has an oval configuration which engages the pin groove with its embossed portions at only two locations. This occurs due to the manner in which the element spreads in opening. Specifically, as the spring is axially spread, each of the legs move in opposite directions away from the center axis of the spring element Such movement reduces the amount of surface capable of being engaged by the pin groove. This arrangement, in which the body and pin only engage in two locations, increases the amount of wobble and movement which occurs between the body and plug member.
In a coaxial type arrangement, however, centering of the inner conductor is essential and wobble, as mentioned above, creates an unacceptable contacting arrangement.
A further disadvantage of the single conductor connector of Dupre is that a minimum amount of locking is afforded since the spring element contacts the plug at only two locations. This type of contact does not afford positive locking of the plug within the socket. In fact, Dupre recognizes the absence of positive locking when he provides for a locking screw 43 which is disposed within the body and which, when tightened, abuts against the side of the spring forcing the spring into engagement with the plug. The use of a locking screw, however, has several disadvantages not the least of which is the inability to assemble and disassemble the connector in confined spaces.
A coaxial connector is described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,377,320 to Lathrop, et al. which issued Mar. 22, 1983. Lathrop, et al. describes a connector employing inner and outer spring fingers that meet with and engage a groove located on the plug member. The spring fingers are defined as U-shaped leaf springs with an outer leaf of each finger contacting the hood of the shell body. As the plug member is inserted into the spring fingers, they are spread outwardly against the hood portion, thereby putting the spring leaves under a compressive force which serves the purpose of making mechanical and electrical contact.
To effect the Lathrop interconnection, a detailed preparation of the sleeve, including the spring fingers, must be undertaken. These preparatory steps all increase time and labor for installing the connector device increasing the cost of installation. Further, adjustment to the force required to either insert or detach the connection is not readily achievable.
The connector of Lathrop is relatively expensive to manufacture and includes component parts which are, in some respects, relatively complex requiring extensive machining operations. This may be due, in part, to the fact that the Lathrop connector is designed to meet prescribed military specifications (see Column 1, line 65). A further disadvantage of the Lathrop connector is the fact that it presents a relatively large connector profile. While Lathrop describes his connector profile as being smaller than prior art connector profiles (Column 1, line 64), it is to be noted from the Lathrop drawings that his connector has a diameter of at least twice that of the coaxial cable received in the connector. While the Lathrop coaxial connector may define a connector profile that is less than some prior art connectors, it is still, nevertheless, relatively large when considering the diameter of the coaxial cable received in the connector.
The subject invention is deemed to overcome these problems and others in a simplified, easy to install connector which is economical to manufacture and which presents a relatively small connector profile.